4 ms·

It's not bullshit. Those FX-processors are 4 years old by now and indeed do not compare favorably even against the smallest current Core-Processor, the i3-6100,

by onli 10y ago

It's not bullshit. Those FX-processors are 4 years old by now and indeed do not compare favorably even against the smallest current Core-Processor, the i3-6100, in almost any metric. That is not surprising, as Skylake is a lot newer, and has a lot faster cores, which matters most for typical workloads. The FX-8320E when overclocked can compete in multi-threaded computational workloads, but will use a lot more energy. For games (which is the main area where users stress their processor), the i3-6100 will still be faster. See http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1682 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1682. The bigger FX-8s are too expensive and would be pitted against i5s, where they always lose. The only recent exception I ran across is Watch Dogs 2, which is sufficiently optimized for multiple cores and AMD processors to make the FX-8370 for once competitive against Intels i5. But that is the first game since the release of those processor where that is happening. What does work for AMD is the Athlon X4 8.0K, the area under 100€. Intels Alternative is the Pentium G4.00, which is worse for most things.

powercf 10y ago
Games are a very specific workload, and I find the focus placed on gaming performance in CPU reviews to be ridiculous. For another specific workload: software that can use 100% of 8+ threads, the FX CPUs are probably ahead of Intel CPUs in the same price range. They do run hotter, but that's not necessarily a huge drawback in a cold country.
- onli 10y ago
  No, they are not faster anymore. Really check the anandtech-benchmarks, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646. Also in areas that are not gaming performance, but resemble more pure computations – like video encoding – the i5 easily beats the fastest FX-8-processor. Same is true when comparing against the FX-9590. If I see that right in every single benchmark.
  - powercf 10y ago
    The results on that page seem to indicate that the i5 is faster (sometimes up to twice as fast) than the FX on single-threaded workloads, while the FX is faster (sometimes up to twice as fast) than the i5 on multi-threaded workloads. They're evenly matched on other tests (e.g. Handbrake & "Agisoft PhotoScan") - I would bet these aren't getting 100% core usage out of the FX. I'm surprised by how close they are in games. If those results are accurate, they do seem to support that AMD FX CPUs are still competitive with new Intel CPUs in the same price range.
    - onli 10y ago
      It's anandtech, it will be accurate. I'll now go one by one through each of them and count where the FX is faster: 17 (out of 86). Okay, that is even more than I thought. However, the differences where the FX is faster are most often very small, apart from the benchmark Linux-Bench 7-Zip, while the other way around the differences are often very big. The FX has the potential to be a fast processor in specific workloads. Yes, that fits to what you said. Certainly not when single-threaded, but in multi-threaded workloads it can still be fast. But faster than the i5 it is only very rarely (which, yes, is less harsh on the FX than I was in the comment above). It is a pity that its potential (4 years ago it compared to a weaker i5) could not be used in meaningful ways in common software. By now it is clearly not a good choice anymore: It uses more energy, depending on what you compare it with it is more expensive or costing the same, and it is on an old platform (AM3+) that won't see further updates. > They're evenly matched on other tests (e.g. Handbrake & "Agisoft PhotoScan No. We don't seem to have the same benchmarks. I'm looking at http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646, where the i5 is clearly faster in the Agisoft and Handbrake benchmarks. It is mainly in the artificial multi-threaded benchmarks as well as Linux 7zip and Linux OpenSSL that the FX can win. For games the FX is almost always behind, but often close, however, those are partly limited by the gpu and thus not too meaningful. > If those results are accurate, they do seem to support that AMD FX CPUs are still competitive with new Intel CPUs in the same price range. No. They mean get an i5: Way better in single threaded workloads which is what counts for 90% of software, faster in realistic multi-threaded workloads. Get an FX if all you do is run OpenSSL and 7zip under Linux, or if already having a good AM3+ board (for that scenario it still is good enough).

by onli 10y ago

powercf 10y ago

Games are a very specific workload, and I find the focus placed on gaming performance in CPU reviews to be ridiculous. For another specific workload: software that can use 100% of 8+ threads, the FX CPUs are probably ahead of Intel CPUs in the same price range. They do run hotter, but that's not necessarily a huge drawback in a cold country.

onli 10y ago
No, they are not faster anymore. Really check the anandtech-benchmarks, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646. Also in areas that are not gaming performance, but resemble more pure computations – like video encoding – the i5 easily beats the fastest FX-8-processor. Same is true when comparing against the FX-9590. If I see that right in every single benchmark.
- powercf 10y ago
  The results on that page seem to indicate that the i5 is faster (sometimes up to twice as fast) than the FX on single-threaded workloads, while the FX is faster (sometimes up to twice as fast) than the i5 on multi-threaded workloads. They're evenly matched on other tests (e.g. Handbrake & "Agisoft PhotoScan") - I would bet these aren't getting 100% core usage out of the FX. I'm surprised by how close they are in games. If those results are accurate, they do seem to support that AMD FX CPUs are still competitive with new Intel CPUs in the same price range.
  - onli 10y ago
    It's anandtech, it will be accurate. I'll now go one by one through each of them and count where the FX is faster: 17 (out of 86). Okay, that is even more than I thought. However, the differences where the FX is faster are most often very small, apart from the benchmark Linux-Bench 7-Zip, while the other way around the differences are often very big. The FX has the potential to be a fast processor in specific workloads. Yes, that fits to what you said. Certainly not when single-threaded, but in multi-threaded workloads it can still be fast. But faster than the i5 it is only very rarely (which, yes, is less harsh on the FX than I was in the comment above). It is a pity that its potential (4 years ago it compared to a weaker i5) could not be used in meaningful ways in common software. By now it is clearly not a good choice anymore: It uses more energy, depending on what you compare it with it is more expensive or costing the same, and it is on an old platform (AM3+) that won't see further updates. > They're evenly matched on other tests (e.g. Handbrake & "Agisoft PhotoScan No. We don't seem to have the same benchmarks. I'm looking at http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646, where the i5 is clearly faster in the Agisoft and Handbrake benchmarks. It is mainly in the artificial multi-threaded benchmarks as well as Linux 7zip and Linux OpenSSL that the FX can win. For games the FX is almost always behind, but often close, however, those are partly limited by the gpu and thus not too meaningful. > If those results are accurate, they do seem to support that AMD FX CPUs are still competitive with new Intel CPUs in the same price range. No. They mean get an i5: Way better in single threaded workloads which is what counts for 90% of software, faster in realistic multi-threaded workloads. Get an FX if all you do is run OpenSSL and 7zip under Linux, or if already having a good AM3+ board (for that scenario it still is good enough).